On 23/03/12 14:33, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
I am a bit dismayed that nobody seems to be picking up on the point
I've been hammering on (TimBL and others have also pointed it out),
that, as shown by the Flickr and Jamendo examples, the real issue is
not an IR/NIR type distinction, but rather a distinction in the
*manner* in which a URI gets its meaning, via instantiation (of some
generic IR) on the one hand, vs. description (of *any* resource,
perhaps even an IR) on the other. The whole
information-resource-as-type issue is a total red herring, perhaps the
most destructive mistake made by the httpRange-14 resolution.
+1000. There is no need for anyone to even talk about "information resources".
The important point about http-range-14, which unfortunately it itself does not make
clear, is that the 200-level code is a signal that the URI *denotes* whatever it
*accesses* via the HTTP internet architecture.
Quite, and this signal is what the change proposal rejects.
The proposal is that URI X denotes what the publisher of X says it
denotes, whether it returns 200 or not.
In those cases where you want a separate URI Xrdf to denote "the
document containing the steaming pile of RDF triples describing X" then
(in addition to use of 303s) you have the option to include
X wdr:describedby Xrdf .
Thus if X denotes a book then you can describe the license for the book
and the license for the description of the book separately.
Dave
